Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car

Honest John Back Room » Legal matters
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Sat 3 May 2014 00:41
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - Unhappy With Dealers

I purchased the above car from a dealer forecourt on the 1st of March 2014. I feel I paid full retail money for the car at £4300.00.

On first inspection the car had a few faults that the dealer promised to rectify. They were the following.

2 Front Tyres (to be replaced with part worns)

Oil Level? Pressure switch

Rear Suspension Knocking (possible rear bushes)

So deal was done, as there was a part ex involved I agreed to transfer the balance to their account on the Monday, which I did.

I was assured all this would be repaired for my collection by the Wednesday of the next week. This never happened and three weeks later and numerous phone calls, all instigated by me as they would never call me back or communicate what was going on. I finally collected the car. I did at one point threaten to pull out of the deal but they had all the money so I did not want to get in to a fight to get my money back, plus I really liked the car and whilst I was not happy with the service so far I was happy to wait as I was not really in rush to get the car.

On the agreed collection date and time, the car was not ready; the dealer was not on site. The car was on jacks getting the tyres changed and was un- valeted. I live over 100 miles away from the dealer so I had no choice but to wait for them to get it ready. When I asked the staff why it was not ready and I was told that the dealer/owner had not told them I was coming to collect the car. After a phone call to him, he turned up an hour later.

I was told all work was done, the rear bushes had been replaced and also they found a faulty wishbone on the front and had replaced that as well. I had little time to inspect the car fully, the valet was a wipe over with a cloth. However I took the car.

On the drive home I found the tracking to be out by a big margin and the rear suspension still knocking. I had to collect my kids from school in the afternoon so I had no time to go back to the dealer.

The following morning I decide to book the car in to my local tyre place to get the tracking sorted as it would cost me less than having to drive the car back to the dealer. I went out to the car to check for the locking wheel nut and it was not in the car. I then checked the wheels and one of the wheel nuts was also missing. I called the dealer to tell them about the rear suspension and the missing wheel nut and locking nut and requested the post it out to me that week. They never did, I chased them several times in the week spoke to the dealer and his staff. I had to buy new locking wheel nuts and get my garage the following week to break off the old ones and fit the new ones, do the tracking all at my cost. I also got them to check the rear suspension and they confirmed that no parts had been changed and they suspected the rear anti roll bar bushes that needed to be replaced.

For the next week or so, I called the dealer to report this; he would not take my calls or answer texts or e mails.

I have now had the anti-roll bar bushes done at my expense, this has not cured the problem and the rear suspension is still knocking.

Further checking of the car has now revealed the following problem’s.

1. Third Level Brake Light not working (this under inspection was found in bits in the boot)

2. Rear Exhaust Back Box rusted with holes in.

3. Tyres fitted to the front where of a larger diameter then the rears (these have now been changed round)

4. One of the two tyres they fitted is heavily cracked on the inner rim and they are also of different brands.

5. Driver’s seat broken (the back rest twists under load)

6. Suspension still knocking (rear)

I also have what appears to be an oil leak in the engine. I also have had the car on a diagnostic machine and I have one fault for a throttle position sensor fault. No sign of any new replacement parts to the front suspension.

What they did with the car for three weeks I will never know.

I am going to take the car for a mot next week to get the car checked to see if its road worthy. I have been doing a lot of reading and have been sent a document re the sales of goods act for car dealers that state that the car has to be fit for purpose and in a road worthy condition regardless if it has a valid mot.

I feel that under this act all these faults were present at time of purchase and have to be fixed by the dealer. Am I correct? I am taking with Trading Standards and the C.a.b and it’s on going.

After weeks of ignoring my e mails and a posted letter of complaint I am now in touch with the dealer again although it’s not very amicable. They have asked me to bring the car back to them next week and they will look at the rear suspension but have not agreed to address or repair any of the other faults. I have said to them today that before I take the car back to them I want to put it through an mot to find out if the car is actually road worthy and find out exactly what is wrong with the suspension and then I expect them to repair these faults and that I won’t bring it back until this is done as I feel that the car has to be independently expect to get to the root of the issues with the car. Again this will be done at my cost. I am still awaiting their response on this. I feel with this report it will stop any disagreement as to what is wrong with the car.

Any advice on if I am doing the right thing and if they are obliged to repair these faults would be appreciated. As a really don’t want to be doing a 200 mile round trip only for them to tell me they’re not going to fix the car hence why I want the mot inspection done so that they can’t argue with the findings from Vosa. I am happy to go to court but I don’t want to be trying to make a case or claim that I can’t win or entitled to.

Looking forward to reading your responses.

Regards

MC

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 3 May 2014 02:13
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - FP

I can't give you a comprehensive answer, but one observation is that you have "muddied the waters" by getting some work done locally to you, as it would be cheaper than driving 200 miles to the dealer and back - which it seems you will be doing anyway.

That was a big mistake - to buy a car from so far away. And it looks as if the car will need to be left at the dealer's for a while at some point.

Another matter: you should not treat the MOT test as a diagnostic inspection, although it will tell you if the car is roadworthy at that point, it may not tell you what you need to know about the suspension issues.

Generally, the dealer must repair the sort of faults you describe, and you must give him the chance to do so.

Consider the small claims procedure a last resort, if after having allowed the dealer plenty of opportunities to rectify matters he has failed to do so.

Edited by FP on 03/05/2014 at 02:14

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 3 May 2014 12:10
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - Avant

(Removed my own post, having realised that a CLK wasn't an estate!)

Edited by Avant on 04/05/2014 at 00:12

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 3 May 2014 13:23
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - pd

Two different issues really,

(a) if you had an agreeement for the dealer to do various things and they didn't do it, it is potentially a breach of contract. You need in writing though really.

(b) Is it "acceptable" that the car has a knock from the rear suspension and an iffy exhaust? That really depends on how old and how many miles it has done. On a car with 100k on the clock it could be considered reasonable to expect the suspension has some wear and the exhaust needs replacing. If it has done 20k and is 2 years old then it probably isn't reasonable to excpect that.

Technically they dealer is not obliged to supply a perfect car. Only one that is fit for purpose (which basically means it starts/stops/goes as a car) and satisfactory. It is the last bit which is very vague on a used car because what is satisfatory on a 200k 15 year old car is not the same as a 1 year old 10k car and all points inbetween,

As far as a claim is concerned, generally, the newer and lower mileage the car the better chance of success you have because fair wear and tear is excluded.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 3 May 2014 15:12
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - Unhappy With Dealers

Thank you all for your comments, Over all I am happy with the car, but I just think that I should not be footing the bill for faults that render the car not fit for the road, hence why I feel by getting an mot done will highlight the areas that show the car is not road worthy and then surly this proves that the car is not fit for purpose or in a satisfactory condition.

When I bought the car I never once expected it to be a perfect car, in an as new condition. There are other areas of the car that need a little attention but I was happy to take these on at my cost, these were mainly cosmetic.

The reason I did the work on the bushes myself was no matter how much I tried to speak with the dealer they just wound not communicate with me but I think now I want to go down this route is purely out of principal. I work for myself and if I treat customers in the same manor I would have no business. I think they thought that if the ignore me for long enough I would just simply go away.

The pasted below some sections from the Office of Fair Trading’s document for Car dealers and these sections are where I feel the dealer has failed with me car. Do you guys agree?

Guidance for second hand car dealers Compliance with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)

Checking the mechanical condition of the vehicle

Roadworthiness 5.17 You should ensure that you have procedures in place to check that vehicles you supply, offer to supply or expose for sale are safe and roadworthy. It is not sufficient to rely on MOT or service histories. This will usually mean arranging for a suitably qualified or competent person to carry out pre-sale mechanical inspections of vehicles and any problems that make them unroadworthy must be rectified.

9.5 Even where a vehicle has a minor defect, it may still be of unsatisfactory quality, for example if that defect has a serious knock on effect (for instance, where the defect causes extensive damage so that the vehicle can never be restored to its previous condition, or the defect renders it dangerous to drive the vehicle). 9.6 You are liable for faults with the vehicle that were present at the time you sold it (where they mean the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality), even though they may only become apparent later on – so called ‘latent’ or ‘inherent’ faults. In some instances the specific fault complained about may not have been present at the time of purchase but the inherent cause of the problem could have rendered the vehicle unsatisfactory at the time of sale.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 3 May 2014 19:07
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - pd

I can't see that much in the list which renders it not roadworthy to be honest. The tyres it really depends on how bad they are, knocking from the rear antiroll bar is likely to just be an advisory etc.

The other problem is that even if it does fail an MOT, that does not mean the dealer committed an offence as they can simply argue it was fine at the point of sale.

I think your main argument should be that the dealer agreed to carry out various work as a condition of the sale and they failed to do so.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 3 May 2014 20:09
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - Unhappy With Dealers

Do you think this also applies to the blowing rear back box?

The only part I don’t understand with your comments, is that if a car bought from a dealer has defects at the time of purchase, all the documentation I have read from the office of fair trading, Trading Standards and Cab is that is down to the dealer to repair.

The faults with my car all seem to be essential to the road worthy condition, i.e. Suspension, Blowing Exhaust, Brake Lights, and Tyres. If this is not the case then why bother having an mot, as if you take your car in for a test and it fails on these points then vosa class your can unfit for the road. See my confusion with your comments.

I agree that that some of the faults I have might fall out of what the dealer has to repair and to be honest if that’s the case I am happy to live with that, after all it’s not a new car.

The whole point of buying from a dealer is to at least have some comfort and come back, that the car is fit for purpose, if not then again what’s the point in buying from dealer. If I was to be stopped now by one of the road side Vosa checks any they found these faults they would be giving me a ticket. It’s not as if I have waited to report this to the dealer I have been trying to get them to talk to me since day 2 of owners which is now just over one month into my ownership so they can’t say they were not faulty at time of purchase.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 3 May 2014 21:05
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - pd

As I wrote above, on the "satisfactory" level it really depends on whether something is a "defect" on how old and used the car is. Knocking suspension on a 20k mile car is probably not acceptable, but worn suspension and exhaust is considered part of wear and tear and to be expected on a car of, say, 120k miles.

Obviously any specific agreements on what was repaired is seperate to that but in terms of trying to get recompense under the sale of goods act as far as satisfactory quality is concerned it makes a massive difference how old and worn the car is.

As the the specific faults, to be honest it really depends on how bad they are. A suspension knock isn't necessarily unroadworthy or an MOT failure - it is an annoyance and a symptom of a worn out part. A minor exhaust blow from the back box isn't necessarily either - a minor leak isn't even a MOT failure. The tyres, again, might be bad but not necessarily dangerous as far as a MOT is concerned - can't tell without looking at them will be the argument put up.

Proving a car was unroadworthy at point of sale is actually very difficult and there are rarely any prosections outside of cases where trading standards have sample purchased a car because of this.

The dealer certainly hasn't prepared the car very well or done what you'd agreed. Fortunately, contrary to popular belief, most dealers are pretty reasonable. This one isn't.

By rights, you may have a claim for some of the repairs and if the engine blew up you'd have far more comeback on a dealer than a private sale but if the seller is totally unco-operative you'd have to take them to court which will cost, take 6-8 months and assuming the car is far from new and others have now worked on it far from guarenteed a success.

As a dealer myself I feel sorry for the experience you have had - the industry does not need dealers with this sort of customer service attitude.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 3 May 2014 21:37
Mercedes CLK 270 CDI 2004 - Dealer Issues with a Faulty Car - Unhappy With Dealers

Thank you for this, you last sentence sums up my problem with this dealer, I think if they treated me fairly I would have sorted some of the issues out with out complaint but now I feel that they just are just taking the P~~~ and now I feel I will go to court just of of principal win or lose what ever the cost.

I think that because no one stands up to dealers like this is why they can still get away with poor service.

What I plan to do is have the inspection done next week, then send it to them and give them the option to agree to what repairs they are prepared to do before I wast my time and take the car back due to the distance. If they refuse any of the work then stright to court I will go.

Edited by Unhappy With Dealers on 03/05/2014 at 21:42

Reply | Report as offensive | Link